This is great! Naturally, I scrolled through anxiously looking for ones I might have used. I have definitely used both 'compelling' and 'gripping' to mean something like 'written with a strong command of narrative pacing' - which, since I mostly review history and other non-fiction, is far from a given. But you're right: those words *are* clichés! I must try harder…
Thanks, Mathew! I’ve used “compelling,” too, in a specific context, such as “makes a compelling argument that.” And I suspect I’ve used “gripping” when space was tight. What drives me nuts is the use words like “compelling” to describe an entire book (“this compelling novel”). I hope the world still has editors bold enough to challenge critics, as the late Bob Silvers of the NYRB did, with: “Compelled to do what?”
Glad to hear I’m not alone! I’m going to be searching my archive for your other clichés in the morning. Funnily enough I’ve been working on a post about reviewing the last couple of weeks. I’ve covered superlatives but I hadn’t thought to discuss reviewer clichés. Perhaps I should…
Operating Instructions is my favorite book of Lamotts's, and to some extent a model for the book I am publishing about time with my mother toward the end of her life but only in the sense that my collection of writing is also a journal.
I just ran across this in an article about Molly Jong-Fast and her memoir of her mother: "some will see her brutally honest, scorched-earth memoir about her mother." Sigh.
‘Propulsive’ seems to be everywhere, as if the paperback is going to rocket off into space. Especially when all it seems to mean is ‘fun to read and I read it quickly’
I've had some very enlightening chats that get into GPT's training/programming limitations. It (ChatGPT) has admitted to me biases that favor certain attitudes and language choices, including tendencies toward avoidance of controversial topics unless it offers both-sides-ism "balance." It also incorporates the trend of adjective inflation and absolute/superlatives, very much patterned after social media. I've been so focused on gathering data it might be impossible to get around to writing about it. #avoidancesyndrome
Years ago, at the University of Charleston, R.V.Cassill (Verlin), came down from Brown for a semester for "gifted writers. He chose his students and I was one of them. During this time, a book was published and hyped to the heavens. I had a copy, bought him a copy and insisted he read it because of the hype. I didn't get it. I thought the book was a good thesis, but still unfinished. Fortunately, he agreed, saying, "Well, he (the author) was almost there." I next asked a naive question, "Then how did he get all these glowing reviews from established writers?" He sighed ,took a drink of his ever present whiskey, and said, "Joan, writing a review is a lot like making love. When people are in bed with each other, they say a lot of things they really don't mean."
Loved this list and the decoding - way back in the ‘90s, we had a verboten-cliches list at the Women’s Review of Books that included “compelling” (I still get a sweaty feeling if I ever contemplate using it; ditto for “luminous”). Because of WRB’s academic slant, “discourse” and “privilege” (as a verb) were also on the list. I’ve also grown heartily sick of “Fast forward to….” Try asking ChatGPT to churn out a quick blurb or summary and see how fast any of the words/phrases on your list show up. Other ChatGPT red flags: “grappling” and “wrestling.”
Thank you for the heartening news that another publication had a list of those cliches! At times I wondered if I was the only editor who wanted to claw her face when she saw another "compelling" or "luminous." And I could have done a companion piece to this one on either academic OR sexist terms in reviews.
Among the scholarly terms: Lacanian theory was riding high when I was a book editor, and I once had to explain to a critic that she needed to translate "defamiliarize" for people who were just looking for a good book to pick up with an after-work beer. And don't get me started on words like "valorize" or the clunky academic locutions you still see a lot today, such as "the author interrogates the question of" instead of "asks."
Especially in reviews of children's books, I saw girls but never boys called "spunky," "feisty," and "plucky." Sam Leith says that in adult books, "feisty" is often paired with "redhead" as in "a feisty red-headed heroine." It's disappointing that we still see this, but I hope your comments will inspire reviewers to keep calling it out.
You have my deepest sympathies, John. I could hit the delete key when I saw "in the proud tradition of J.R.R. Tolkien" for any book with a dwarf in it, but you have challenges on a whole other level :).
One not featured here but which I'very noticed several times is 'necessary'. Kind of puzzling because it really depends what you compare it to. If I'very run out of milk, milk is then more necessary to me than the book, isn't it? Anyway, I read this piece with a big smile from beginning to end, thanks for the insightful and fun analysis. A lesser writer wouldn't have been able to put this genre defining work so brilliantly 😂
You may be telepathic. I wanted to include "necessary" and "urgent" in the listing for "essential." But by then I kept seeing those scary "nearly too long for email" messages from Substack, so I omitted them. I hope to include both in the next update of this and appreciate the nudge toward that.
Thank you, Jan. I’ve archived this and will be looking it over when I’m writing book reviews. “Shot through with”— I came dangerously close to using that one once.
I know, you’re right, and i came damn close— I recall a period where i just liked what I saw as the vivid colorful nature of that phrase, and sometimes my naïveté wins and sometimes my cynicism wins, and I heard a tiny voice saying “watch your step with this one”
Most of those other cliches you listed are easier to see through and mock because they’re so overused you’d have to be really thick not to be sick of them. But that one seduced me for a while.
I’m not sure if you included this one, and maybe it’s not as bad as the other villains but I’m really getting tired of “palpable”
Another item— I’ve only been writing book reviews for a short time. I’ve written six or seven. And from the very beginning i wrestled with issues of being too inane, etc., against my editor’s quite reasonable set of guidelines that essentially said “you’re not hunter Thompson Joan didion et al”
I’m projecting a bit but essentially there was a sense of “this book review isn’t about you”
And I have no objection to that. I was happy to get the work and eager to be a pro and get paid.
My point, which may not be clear, is that while i do think some writers for print media have been self indulgent in ways it’s hard to defend, you write a lot of reviews and it’s got to be hard to keep coming up with truly fresh and insightful work. I typically agonize for weeks over the right way to write about Cynthia Ozick, or the Mark Twain bio, or (currently) Etgar Keret’s new collection. And I wonder how many people on deadline would have the luxury of agonizing as much as I do.
I should add— despite my oversimplification earlier, my editor has been very tolerant of my attempts to do something personal within the guidelines. But it’s hard work, and I’d like to say I wouldn’t be tempted to use the lazy language if I had those higher pressure jobs. But I don’t know.
I dislike "palpable" for things you can't touch, too. And it does get harder to find with fresh ways to describe books after you've been reviewing for a while. That no doubt helps to explain why MK overused "affecting" and "deeply affecting."
Short reviews can be especially challenging because you have so little space that they may seem to require overused adjectives, and editors will ask for or add them if you don't supply them. A lot of the abuse of some adjectives may result from the shrinking space for book reviews, which can preclude developing a longer and less cliched idea. Good luck!
This is great! Naturally, I scrolled through anxiously looking for ones I might have used. I have definitely used both 'compelling' and 'gripping' to mean something like 'written with a strong command of narrative pacing' - which, since I mostly review history and other non-fiction, is far from a given. But you're right: those words *are* clichés! I must try harder…
Thanks, Mathew! I’ve used “compelling,” too, in a specific context, such as “makes a compelling argument that.” And I suspect I’ve used “gripping” when space was tight. What drives me nuts is the use words like “compelling” to describe an entire book (“this compelling novel”). I hope the world still has editors bold enough to challenge critics, as the late Bob Silvers of the NYRB did, with: “Compelled to do what?”
Glad to hear I’m not alone! I’m going to be searching my archive for your other clichés in the morning. Funnily enough I’ve been working on a post about reviewing the last couple of weeks. I’ve covered superlatives but I hadn’t thought to discuss reviewer clichés. Perhaps I should…
Operating Instructions is my favorite book of Lamotts's, and to some extent a model for the book I am publishing about time with my mother toward the end of her life but only in the sense that my collection of writing is also a journal.
I saw a blurb today by Anne Lamott where she - Anne Lamott! - used "unputdownable." 😬
Lamont has always struck me as overrated for her writing advice, and that doesn’t surprise me. I liked her book about her young son better.
I finished the article. I am underwhelmed both by content and craft. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/31/style/molly-jong-fast-memoir-erica-jong.html
I am going to try to finish the article but it's a tough start.
I just ran across this in an article about Molly Jong-Fast and her memoir of her mother: "some will see her brutally honest, scorched-earth memoir about her mother." Sigh.
‘Propulsive’ seems to be everywhere, as if the paperback is going to rocket off into space. Especially when all it seems to mean is ‘fun to read and I read it quickly’
"tour de force" tells me nothing useful
ChatGPT is so last-mentioned biased.
I didn’t know about that bias, but it makes sense.
Thanks!
I've had some very enlightening chats that get into GPT's training/programming limitations. It (ChatGPT) has admitted to me biases that favor certain attitudes and language choices, including tendencies toward avoidance of controversial topics unless it offers both-sides-ism "balance." It also incorporates the trend of adjective inflation and absolute/superlatives, very much patterned after social media. I've been so focused on gathering data it might be impossible to get around to writing about it. #avoidancesyndrome
Years ago, at the University of Charleston, R.V.Cassill (Verlin), came down from Brown for a semester for "gifted writers. He chose his students and I was one of them. During this time, a book was published and hyped to the heavens. I had a copy, bought him a copy and insisted he read it because of the hype. I didn't get it. I thought the book was a good thesis, but still unfinished. Fortunately, he agreed, saying, "Well, he (the author) was almost there." I next asked a naive question, "Then how did he get all these glowing reviews from established writers?" He sighed ,took a drink of his ever present whiskey, and said, "Joan, writing a review is a lot like making love. When people are in bed with each other, they say a lot of things they really don't mean."
I've never forgotten that.
Unputdownable=sticky=porn
Loved this list and the decoding - way back in the ‘90s, we had a verboten-cliches list at the Women’s Review of Books that included “compelling” (I still get a sweaty feeling if I ever contemplate using it; ditto for “luminous”). Because of WRB’s academic slant, “discourse” and “privilege” (as a verb) were also on the list. I’ve also grown heartily sick of “Fast forward to….” Try asking ChatGPT to churn out a quick blurb or summary and see how fast any of the words/phrases on your list show up. Other ChatGPT red flags: “grappling” and “wrestling.”
Yes, “valorize” and “interrogate” were also academic jargon I was instructed to ditch as an editor, and I did so with pleasure.
Thank you for the heartening news that another publication had a list of those cliches! At times I wondered if I was the only editor who wanted to claw her face when she saw another "compelling" or "luminous." And I could have done a companion piece to this one on either academic OR sexist terms in reviews.
Among the scholarly terms: Lacanian theory was riding high when I was a book editor, and I once had to explain to a critic that she needed to translate "defamiliarize" for people who were just looking for a good book to pick up with an after-work beer. And don't get me started on words like "valorize" or the clunky academic locutions you still see a lot today, such as "the author interrogates the question of" instead of "asks."
Especially in reviews of children's books, I saw girls but never boys called "spunky," "feisty," and "plucky." Sam Leith says that in adult books, "feisty" is often paired with "redhead" as in "a feisty red-headed heroine." It's disappointing that we still see this, but I hope your comments will inspire reviewers to keep calling it out.
Excellent. As a long-time book sales guy, this both made me laugh and gave me PTSD.
You have my deepest sympathies, John. I could hit the delete key when I saw "in the proud tradition of J.R.R. Tolkien" for any book with a dwarf in it, but you have challenges on a whole other level :).
One not featured here but which I'very noticed several times is 'necessary'. Kind of puzzling because it really depends what you compare it to. If I'very run out of milk, milk is then more necessary to me than the book, isn't it? Anyway, I read this piece with a big smile from beginning to end, thanks for the insightful and fun analysis. A lesser writer wouldn't have been able to put this genre defining work so brilliantly 😂
You may be telepathic. I wanted to include "necessary" and "urgent" in the listing for "essential." But by then I kept seeing those scary "nearly too long for email" messages from Substack, so I omitted them. I hope to include both in the next update of this and appreciate the nudge toward that.
Essential is a good umbrella for necessary and urgent, you’re right. Already looking forward to part 2!
Thank you, Jan. I’ve archived this and will be looking it over when I’m writing book reviews. “Shot through with”— I came dangerously close to using that one once.
Glad you resisted, Karl. Calling something "shot through with" makes you feel as though it should be murdered, doesn't it?
I know, you’re right, and i came damn close— I recall a period where i just liked what I saw as the vivid colorful nature of that phrase, and sometimes my naïveté wins and sometimes my cynicism wins, and I heard a tiny voice saying “watch your step with this one”
Most of those other cliches you listed are easier to see through and mock because they’re so overused you’d have to be really thick not to be sick of them. But that one seduced me for a while.
I’m not sure if you included this one, and maybe it’s not as bad as the other villains but I’m really getting tired of “palpable”
Another item— I’ve only been writing book reviews for a short time. I’ve written six or seven. And from the very beginning i wrestled with issues of being too inane, etc., against my editor’s quite reasonable set of guidelines that essentially said “you’re not hunter Thompson Joan didion et al”
I’m projecting a bit but essentially there was a sense of “this book review isn’t about you”
And I have no objection to that. I was happy to get the work and eager to be a pro and get paid.
My point, which may not be clear, is that while i do think some writers for print media have been self indulgent in ways it’s hard to defend, you write a lot of reviews and it’s got to be hard to keep coming up with truly fresh and insightful work. I typically agonize for weeks over the right way to write about Cynthia Ozick, or the Mark Twain bio, or (currently) Etgar Keret’s new collection. And I wonder how many people on deadline would have the luxury of agonizing as much as I do.
I should add— despite my oversimplification earlier, my editor has been very tolerant of my attempts to do something personal within the guidelines. But it’s hard work, and I’d like to say I wouldn’t be tempted to use the lazy language if I had those higher pressure jobs. But I don’t know.
I dislike "palpable" for things you can't touch, too. And it does get harder to find with fresh ways to describe books after you've been reviewing for a while. That no doubt helps to explain why MK overused "affecting" and "deeply affecting."
Short reviews can be especially challenging because you have so little space that they may seem to require overused adjectives, and editors will ask for or add them if you don't supply them. A lot of the abuse of some adjectives may result from the shrinking space for book reviews, which can preclude developing a longer and less cliched idea. Good luck!
This list is luminously gripping me by my heartbreaking throat.
Ha. What is it about that "luminous" that makes it so loved by critics and loathed by others? It makes books sound radioactive.